Maybe after all the difference between a kid who dropped out of school to sell weed versus that who did to become an entrepreneur is simply the ease/accessibility of the “path taken.” While both will learn the “principles of life” commenced at supply, demand, and greed, the first path is more egalitarian: anyone can sell weed.

It is harder than one might think to make the case that the utopia of drop-out-pot-dealers is any more ignorant than its counterpart: the world of entrepreneurs. What is undeniable however is that in such utopia privilege withers away: surplus of social time: the time spent “otherwise.” Who is to say what the drop-out-pot-dealer is to use such surplus for?

The threat that such utopia presents however is much more fundamental: here, labor and capital are still present except they are not necessarily tied to eachother: capitalism without capitalistic conformity. Unfortunately for the drop-out-pot-dealer (and humanity for that matter), for modern day parasites, what good is capitalism for if it does not maintain order? For it is neither about capital nor labor, rather about a status-quo produced by the fusion and conflation of both.

The non-conformity is loud. If these “losers selling pot” do not organize it is because they do not have to. It is the dual occupation of these losers that is the problem: ‘drop-outs’ on one hand, ‘pot-dealers’ on the other. This duality of being nothing yet something is what menaces order. The path splits into two for the parasites of the industry to circumvent this fiasco. One way is to drop the term “drop-out.” But a world with no drop-outs is also one with nothing to drop-out off. The other path is more traditional. How does a bunch of hooligans cease to be so? Organization. Legalize and regulate pot, create the competition, and now these hooligans are just as much losers as they are entrepreneurs. The surplus turns into deficit.

Now Lenin is confused. Trade-unionism is not how the communist was murdered. Trade-unionism is a phenomenon that wants to tell a story: “There is no point of killing a communist. The communist will commit suicide.”

“What is to be done?” was the “Israeli question” on October 7th. The road here too splits into two. The first is destroy the entire enclave under the premise of destroying the Palestinian resistance. The second is vice versa. It is not redundancy in wording that makes these two options equivalent. It is the convergence in outcome. Both point at a non-distinction between civilians and resistance fighters: rightfully so in an armed struggle. More importantly, if killing/displacing everyone with mass-destruction does not work, then “organized-labor” for rebuild will do just fine.